Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26272977›Full record

ArticleAJNR. American journal of neuroradiology2015

Clopidogrel Resistance in Neurovascular Stenting: Correlations between Light Transmission Aggregometry, VerifyNow, and the Multiplate.

N Flechtenmacher, F Kämmerer, R Dittmer, U Budde, P Michels, J Röther, B Eckert

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

29 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Discordance in tests used to detect inhibition of the P2Y12 receptor in patients undergoing interventional neuroradiology procedures.Interventional neuroradiology : journal of peritherapeutic neuroradiology, surgical procedures and related neurosciences · 2023
    Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

N FlechtenmacherFrom the Departments of Neuroradiology (N.F., F.K., B.E.).
F KämmererFrom the Departments of Neuroradiology (N.F., F.K., B.E.).
R DittmerDepartment of Laboratory Medicine (R.D., U.B.), Medilys Laboratory Company, Hamburg, Germany.
U BuddeDepartment of Laboratory Medicine (R.D., U.B.), Medilys Laboratory Company, Hamburg, Germany.
P MichelsNeurology (P.M., J.R.), Asklepios Klinik Altona, Hamburg, Germany.
J RötherNeurology (P.M., J.R.), Asklepios Klinik Altona, Hamburg, Germany.
B EckertFrom the Departments of Neuroradiology (N.F., F.K., B.E.) b.eckert@asklpios.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

background and purposeClopidogrel resistance is blamed for thromboembolic complications in neurovascular stent placement. Platelet-function assays are weakly standardized. The aim of this study was to correlate the results of 3 different platelet-inhibition measurements (from light transmission aggregometry, the VerifyNow P2Y12 test, and the Multiplate analyzer) and their relation to periprocedural thromboembolic complications in elective neurovascular stent placement. MATERIALS AND

methodsClopidogrel resistance was determined on the day of the intervention according to predefined platelet reactivity cutoff values. All 3 tests were performed in 103 consecutive neurovascular stent-placement procedures in 97 patients (extracranial, n = 77; intracranial, n = 26).

resultsThe clopidogrel resistance rates were 47.6% (light transmission aggregometry), 50.5% (VerifyNow), and 35.9% (Multiplate). In 67% of the patients, clopidogrel resistance was present according to at least one method. The correlations of qualitative results that classified a patient as responsive or resistant to clopidogrel were 67.9% for light transmission aggregometry with VerifyNow, 77.7% for light transmission aggregometry with the Multiplate, and 66% for VerifyNow with the Multiplate. Periprocedural thromboembolic complications (n = 9) occurred more frequently in patients who were determined by all 3 methods to be clopidogrel resistant. The difference was most pronounced with light transmission aggregometry (complication rates, 14.4% [clopidogrel-resistant patients] vs 3.7% [clopidogrel-responsive patients]). Sensitivity and specificity rates of clopidogrel resistance in relation to embolic complications were, respectively, 78% and 55% for light transmission aggregometry, 67% and 51% for VerifyNow, and 44% and 67% for the Multiplate.

conclusionsClopidogrel resistance is a frequent finding in patients who undergo neurovascular stent placement. The correlations among the different testing methods are only modest and differ considerably. Light transmission aggregometry results seem to correlate with thromboembolic complications more accurately than with VerifyNow and Multiplate point-of-care methods.

Indexed as

Drug ResistanceEmbolization, TherapeuticStentsAgedBrain IschemiaClopidogrelFemaleHumansIntracranial AneurysmIntracranial EmbolismMaleMiddle AgedPlatelet AggregationPlatelet Aggregation InhibitorsPlatelet Function TestsPoint-of-Care SystemsClopidogrelPlatelet Aggregation InhibitorsTiclopidine

Identifiers

PMID26272977
PMCPMC7965050

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.